5 ms·

Eclipse added Huawei as a strategic member last fall: https://blog.huawei.com/2019/10/22/huawei-becomes-a-strategic-member-of-the-eclipse-foundation/ https://b

Eclipse added Huawei as a strategic member last fall: https://blog.huawei.com/2019/10/22/huawei-becomes-a-strategic-member-of-the-eclipse-foundation/ https://blog.huawei.com/2019/10/22/huawei-becomes-a-strategi... As well as another company that partners with a Chinese government lab. I have to wonder whether this was about technology transfer and geopolitics as it becomes more difficult to work with both China and the US.

xenophonf 6y ago
Eclipse is an open source project. There's no technology to transfer because it's already accessible to everyone. This move is about improving the foundation's governance, and the EU has several advantages over the United States in this regard.
- jkingsbery 6y ago
  Genuinely curious. What are these? I was hoping to find these in the article. The article talks about growing in Europe (which seems like it should be possible if the "base" is in North America but with a large EU presence) and working on "innovative new open source projects" which should be doable from anywhere.
  - Barrin92 6y ago
    >"innovative new open source projects" which should be doable from anywhere not if you're an Iranian developer and shut out due to US sanctions, which someone like the Eclipse foundation would have to comply with if they were still located in the US. A year or so ago Github had to shut out Iranian, Syrian and Crimean developers for example.
    - jkingsbery 6y ago
      Interesting, I hadn't thought about that. My (limited) understanding is that US regulations are that firms that aid the government of Iran also are subject to sanction. If the move to Europe was primarily about allowing developers in Iran, Syria and Crimea to contribute, is there any threat to Eclipse's relationship with US developers?
- kevin_thibedeau 6y ago
  The US doesn't give open source a pass on sanction enforcement. Witness the heavy-handedness of Github post acquisition. Maintaining US operations for a global team can create issues as the political winds shift.
  - jkaplowitz 6y ago
    Quite a lot of activity on GitHub isn't open source, especially not where they get their revenue from. But you're right that US authority can have severe impacts.
apta 6y ago
There should be more ethical considerations before adding such companies as "strategic members". They really shouldn't have.
jkaplowitz 6y ago
I'm guessing it's about avoiding US authority for at least some current or future projects under the aegis of the foundation, or allowing some members like Huawei to participate more fully. Even if technology transfer doesn't get away from US export rules for existing US-based projects, the switch might be relevant for future donations from Huawei to Eclipse.
EFdnV 6y ago
Full disclosure - I work for the Eclipse Foundation. We are a vendor-neutral, membership-led organization with global reach. The primary motivations for this move were that ⅔’s of our members and ⅔’s of our committers were based in Europe, and we saw an opportunity to become even more relevant to our stakeholders. We think that being based in Europe will be an interesting differentiator, but we are in this to help foster worldwide collaboration, not get bogged down in politics.
- notadonut 6y ago
  > we are in this to help foster worldwide collaboration, not get bogged down in politics. That was my point. Belgium, a famously neutral country, allows you to do that.

xenophonf 6y ago

Eclipse is an open source project. There's no technology to transfer because it's already accessible to everyone. This move is about improving the foundation's governance, and the EU has several advantages over the United States in this regard.

jkingsbery 6y ago
Genuinely curious. What are these? I was hoping to find these in the article. The article talks about growing in Europe (which seems like it should be possible if the "base" is in North America but with a large EU presence) and working on "innovative new open source projects" which should be doable from anywhere.
- Barrin92 6y ago
  >"innovative new open source projects" which should be doable from anywhere not if you're an Iranian developer and shut out due to US sanctions, which someone like the Eclipse foundation would have to comply with if they were still located in the US. A year or so ago Github had to shut out Iranian, Syrian and Crimean developers for example.
  - jkingsbery 6y ago
    Interesting, I hadn't thought about that. My (limited) understanding is that US regulations are that firms that aid the government of Iran also are subject to sanction. If the move to Europe was primarily about allowing developers in Iran, Syria and Crimea to contribute, is there any threat to Eclipse's relationship with US developers?
kevin_thibedeau 6y ago
The US doesn't give open source a pass on sanction enforcement. Witness the heavy-handedness of Github post acquisition. Maintaining US operations for a global team can create issues as the political winds shift.
- jkaplowitz 6y ago
  Quite a lot of activity on GitHub isn't open source, especially not where they get their revenue from. But you're right that US authority can have severe impacts.

apta 6y ago

There should be more ethical considerations before adding such companies as "strategic members". They really shouldn't have.

jkaplowitz 6y ago

I'm guessing it's about avoiding US authority for at least some current or future projects under the aegis of the foundation, or allowing some members like Huawei to participate more fully. Even if technology transfer doesn't get away from US export rules for existing US-based projects, the switch might be relevant for future donations from Huawei to Eclipse.

EFdnV 6y ago

Full disclosure - I work for the Eclipse Foundation. We are a vendor-neutral, membership-led organization with global reach. The primary motivations for this move were that ⅔’s of our members and ⅔’s of our committers were based in Europe, and we saw an opportunity to become even more relevant to our stakeholders. We think that being based in Europe will be an interesting differentiator, but we are in this to help foster worldwide collaboration, not get bogged down in politics.

notadonut 6y ago
> we are in this to help foster worldwide collaboration, not get bogged down in politics. That was my point. Belgium, a famously neutral country, allows you to do that.